Source

When I sat down to watch The Woman in the Yard I was expecting some supernatural horror thing because you see that photo of the woman covered with the black veil sitting in the yard and you expect it to be pure terror. Although the movie has its moments and Danielle Deadwyler does a pretty good job with the main character, this isn't the type of horror you expect when you see it's a Blumhouse production but these people don't want to climb out of the hole with movies like Imaginary and Night Swim that were pretty mediocre and now this. Director Jaume Collet Serra presents a story about Ramona, a widowed mother living with her two kids on a farm away from everything, she has to carry the death of her husband which was a car accident where she also got hurt, the kids are almost taking care of themselves because mom is so deep in her depression that everything is a total disaster but she doesn't do anything to fix it because she's in her pain. One day this mysterious woman appears sitting in the house's yard, dressed completely in black with a veil covering her face, and she stays there sitting without moving looking towards the house all day, Ramona goes out to talk to her but the woman knows too much about her life and tells her things that scare her a lot, then she goes back to the house and tells the kids not to worry that the lady will leave at some point but the truth is the woman starts getting closer and closer to the house as the hours pass.

Cuando me senté a ver The Woman in the Yard yo esperaba una vaina de terror sobrenatural porque uno ve esa foto de la mujer cubierta con el velo negro sentada en el patio y uno se espera que sea terror puro. Aunque la película tiene sus momentos y Danielle Deadwyler hace un trabajo bastante bueno con el personaje principal, este no es el tipo de terror que uno espera cuando ve que es una produccion de Blumhouse pero es que esta gente no quiere salir del foso con pelis como Imaginary y Night Swim que fueron bastante mediocres y ahora esto. El director Jaume Collet Serra presenta una historia sobre Ramona, una madre viuda que vive con sus dos hijos en una granja alejada de todo, ella tiene uqe cargar con la muerte de su esposo que fue un accidente de carro donde ella también salió herida, los niños casi que se están cuidando solos porque la mamá anfa tan metida en su depresión que todo es un desastre total pero ella no hace nada para arreglarlo porque está en su dolor. Un dia aparece esta mujer misteriosa sentada en el patio de la casa, vestida completamente de negro con un velo cubriendo su cara, y se queda ahi sentada sin moverse mirando hacia la casa todo el dia, Ramona sale a hablar con ella pero la mujer sabe demasiado sobre su vida y le dice cosas que la asustan muchisimo, entonces regresa a la casa y les dice a los niños que no se preocupen que la tipa en algún momento se va a ir pero la verdad es que la mujer empieza a acercarse cada vez más a la casa conforme pasan las horas.

Source

The older son Taylor is a typical horror movie teenager, he's mad at mom all the time although here I understand him because his mom is being total shit to them, the truth is he tries to take care of his little sister Annie and do everything mom should be doing but she's upstairs in her room watching videos of her dead husband over and over without paying attention to her kids. The movie is super slow for like an hour where it's just watching that lady sitting outside moving a little bit closer to the house and the family inside looking through the windows wondering what the hell this woman wants. At some point Taylor grabs his dad's rifle and goes out to confront the woman in the yard because he's fed up and the woman tells him his mom is lying to him about the night his father died and when he tells Ramona about this she finally admits the truth and that's where a flashback of that fatal night appears, turns out Ramona and her husband fought because she wasn't happy with her life on the farm, she tells him she moved there but didn't want to, that she's not happy taking care of the kids and the animals and all that stuff he wanted for the family, the husband tries to talk but the woman keeps fighting and she's the one driving and she sees the veiled woman in the rearview mirror and gets distracted and that's when the accident happens.

El hijo mayor Taylor es un adolescente tipico de peliculas de terror, está molesto con la mampá todo el tiempo aunque aquí lo entiendo porque su mama está siendo una mierda total con ellos, lo cierto es que el trata de cuidar a su hermanita pequeña Annie y de hacer todo lo que la mamá tiene que hacer pero ella está arriba en su cuarto viendo videos de su esposo muerto una y otra vez sin prestarle atención a sus hijos. La pelicula es super lenta psa como una hora donde solo es ver a la tipa esa sentada afuera moviendose un poquito mas cerca de la casa y a la familia adentro mirando por las ventanas preguntandose que carajo quiere esta señora. En algun punto Taylor agarra el rifle de su papa y sale a enfrentar a la mujer en el patio porque ya está harto y la mujer le dice que su mamá le está mintiendo sobre la noche que murió su padre y cuando el le dice a Ramona sobre esto ella finalmente admite la verdad y ahí es donde aparece un flashback de esa noche fatal, resulta que Ramona y su esposo pelearon porque ella no era feliz con su vida en la granja, ella le dice que se mudó allí pero no queria hacerlo, que no es feliz cuidando a los niños y los animales y todo eso que el queria para la familia, el esposo trata de hablar pero la caraja sigue peleando y ella es la que va manejando y ella ve a la mujer del velo en el espejo retrovisor y se distrae y allí ocurre el accidente.

Source

Source

Here the movie starts revealing what's happening and that veiled woman isn't any ghost or anything supernatural, she's a physical manifestation of Ramona's depression and her suicidal thoughts, the woman is there because Ramona called her, she prays every day asking for strength but it's not strength to move forward but strength to end her life and leave her kids completely orphaned, what a crazy woman. After that everything gets very messy with dreams, flashbacks and changes where you don't know what's real and what isn't, you see Ramona in the yard woman's place, you see shadows attacking the family inside the house, there's a scene where it looks like Ramona stabs her daughter but it turns out to be just a pillow, everything is confusing and hard to follow because they're throwing too much information at you in too little time without giving you a chance to catch anything. The part that screwed me up was when the yard woman confronts Ramona and tells her today is the day, that she asked for help to end everything and she's there to give her that help, Ramona asks if her kids will be okay without her and the woman lights a lighter and passes it in front of some photographs on the wall that magically change showing the kids as adults being successful, happy, graduating from college, having good careers, all because their mother killed herself and left them alone, here the movie is telling you things will be better if she commits suicide and that seemed super irresponsible and in bad taste as a message for a movie.

Aqui la película empieza a revelar lo que está pasando y la mujer esa del velo no es ningún fantasma ni nada sobrenatural, es una manifestación física de la depresión de Ramona y sus pensamientos suicidas, la mujer esta ahi porque Ramona la llamo, ella reza todos los dias pidiendo fuerza pero no es fuerza para seguir adelante sino fuerza para terminar con su vida y dejar a sus hijos huérfanos completamente, que mujer tan loca. Ya después todo es muy enredado con sueños, flashbacks y cambios que uno no sabe que es real y que no lo es, ves a Ramona en el lugar de la mujer del patio, ves sombras atacando a la familia dentro de la casa, hay una escena donde parece que Ramona apuñala a su hija pero resulta ser solo una almohada, todo es confuso y dificil de seguir porque te estan tirando demasiada informacion en muy poco tiempo sin dar chance de agarrar nada. La parte que me jodió fue cuando la mujer del patio confronta a Ramona y le dice que hoy es el dia, que ella pidió ayuda para terminar con todo y ahi esta para darle esa ayuda, Ramona pregunta si sus hijos van a estar bien sin ella y la mujer prende un encendedor y lo pasa frente a unas fotografias en la pared que magicamente cambian mostrando a los niños de adultos siendo exitosos, felices, graduandose de la universidad, teniendo buenas carreras, todo porque su madre se mató y los dejo solos, aquí la película te está diciendo que las cosas van a ser mejores si ella se suicida y eso me pareció super irresponsable y de mal gusto como mensaje para una pelicula.

Source

The scene cuts and everything looks normal and you think the lady decided not to kill herself and that she beat her demons and for a moment I was thinking how good not to see that depressing ending they seemed to be heading for but then it seems like it's a dream and the happy ending isn't real, she did kill herself, the kids are orphaned and all that embrace with the electricity and the dog coming back was just her last thought before dying or some twisted version of purgatory. When it ended I sat there thinking seriously, they're going to do this to me after almost redeeming the movie for a second, they're going to give me hope that this mother chose to stay with her kids who need her and then tell me no actually she shot herself and left them alone on a farm in the middle of nowhere where they were already having a hard time with her alive imagine now without any parent, that seemed super fucked up to me and not in the good horror sense that makes you uncomfortable, but in the sense that it made me genuinely angry at the movie for sending that kind of dark message without any type of redemption or fight against those thoughts. At least the performances are good in this movie, Danielle Deadwyler does an incredible job with a super difficult character to play because she has to show pain, guilt, anger, fear, depression all at the same time and she does it very well even though the character is so unpleasant it's hard to feel empathy for her.

La escena corta y todo se ve normal y uno cree que la tipa decidió no suicidarse y que venció a sus demonios y por un momento yo estaba pensando que bueno no ver ese final deprimente que parecía que iban a hacer pero entonces parece que es un sueños y el final feliz no es real, ella si se mató, los niños estan huerfanos y todo ese abrazo con la electricidad y el perro regresando fue solo su ultimo pensamiento antes de morir o alguna versión retorcida del purgatorio. Cuando terminó yo me quede ahi sentada pensando en serio, me van a hacer esto después de casi redimir la película por un segundo, me van a dar esperanza de que esta madre eligió quedarse con sus hijos que la necesitan y luego me van a decir no en realidad se pegó un tiro y los dejo solos en una granja en medio de la nada donde ya estaban pasándola mal con ella viva imagínate ahora sin ningún padre, eso me pareció super jodido y no en el buen sentido de terror que te hace sentir incomodo, sino en el sentido de que me hizo enojar de verdad con la película por mandar ese tipo de mensaje tan oscuro sin ningún tipo de redención o lucha contra esos pensamientos. Por lo menos las actuaciones son buenas en esta película, Danielle Deadwyler hace un trabajo increible con un personaje super dificil de interpretar porque tiene que mostrar dolor, culpa, enojo, miedo, depresion todo al mismo tiempo y ella lo hace muy bien aunque el personaje sea tan desagradable que es dificil sentir empatia por ella.

Source

I think this movie works better when you watch it as a psychological drama about mental health than as a horror movie, the real horror here isn't the yard woman but that suicidal idea and how depression can convince you everyone would be better off without you when that's completely false, the message could have been powerful if they had handled it differently, if they had shown Ramona fighting against those thoughts and choosing to stay for her kids it would have been something inspiring. I really didn't like this movie it's unpleasant and it's not that I'm too sensitive or can't handle dark content, I've watched super depressing and disturbing movies that I've loved because they have something to say or make you reflect but this felt like exploiting a super serious subject without giving it the respect it deserves. My score for The Woman in the Yard is 5/10 and that's being nice because of Danielle Deadwyler's performance, the message is irresponsible, the pace is too slow, the ending is confusing and depressing without giving any positive message about overcoming your inner demons, I don't recommend this movie at all for me it was crap. Blumhouse needs to do better things because they keep putting out mediocre movies with questionable messages and it's not working for them at all and The Woman in the Yard is another example of this.

Creo que esta peli funciona mejor cuando uno la ve como un drama psicológico sobre salud mental que como una película de terror, el terror real aqui no es la mujer del patio sino esa idea suicida y como la depresión puede convencerte de que todos estarían mejor sin ti cuando eso es completamente falso, el mensaje pudo haber sido poderoso si lo hubieran manejado de otra manera, si hubieran mostrado a Ramona luchando contra esos pensamientos y eligiendo quedarse por sus hijos habria sido algo inspirador. Esta peli de verdad no me gustó es desagradable y no es que yo sea demasiado sensible o que no pueda manejar contenido oscuro, he visto pelis super deprimentes y perturbadoras que me han encantado porque tienen algo que decir o te hacen reflexionar pero esto se sintio como explotar un tema super serio sin darle el respeto que merece. Mi puntuación para The Woman in the Yard es 5/10 y eso siendo buena gente por la actuacion de Danielle Deadwyler, el mensaje es irresponsable, el ritmo es demasiado lento, el final es confuso y deprimente sin dar ningun mensaje positivo sobre superar tus demonios internos, no la recomiendo para nada esta peli para mi fue una cagada. Blumhouse necesita hacer mejores cosas porque seguir sacando peliculas mediocres con mensajes cuestionables no les esta funcionando para nada y The Woman in the Yard es otro ejemplo de esto.

"Translated to English with DeepL"

Posted Using INLEO

¡Buenas amigos de Hive! Como este mes se celebra el terror, hoy les traigo una recomendación de la película que más me ha perturbado. Realmente es difícil sacártela de la cabeza después de verla. Vale la pena y es perfecta para compartir con un amigo en una noche oscura.

La sustancia es una película de terror y ciencia ficción dirigida, escrita y coproducida por Coralie Fargeat. Está protagonizada por Demi Moore, Margaret Qualley y Dennis Quaid. La trama sigue la historia de Elisabeth Sparkle, una estrella de un programa de aeróbic, que es despedida por su edad y decide recurrir a una sustancia misteriosa que promete belleza y juventud.

Esta película me resultó sumamente perturbadora al punto de que el espectador puede amarla u odiarla, no hay términos medios. Es que explora el tema de la fama, la belleza y la juventud, en una sociedad que valora la apariencia sobre todo lo demás, de una forma extrema y dura. Te dará escalofríos y no miento. Al principio pensé que era rara pero nada más y mientras van pasando los minutos te causa hasta una reacción física de repugnancia.

La juventud y la belleza, temas super explorados, criticados y puesto en debate muchas veces en el cine, sin embargo esta película logró darle un nuevo giro perturbador que no se te va a olvidar. Las imágenes son impresionantes y pasa de lo perfecto a lo grotesco en un segundo. La directora muestra cómo la industria del entretenimiento y la sociedad se ha se ha retorcido al punto máximo de la crueldad con las mujeres que envejecen. Y esa presión social pone a la protagonista en una posición extrema donde recurrirá a un tratamiento clandestino que involucra una sustancia tan misteriosa y como peligrosa.

La Sustancia promete juventud y belleza, pero tiene reglas y un precio que nadie espera. El experimento sale bien, vemos dos versiones de la protagonista: una más joven y otra más adulta. Todo sale bien al principio, sin embargo comienza a torcerse cuando la versión más joven y perfecta de Elisabeth rompe esas reglas, causando consecuencias devastadoras para su versión más adulta y todo se sale de control. La actuación de Demi Moore es extraordinaria y se merecía ese Oscar que no le dieron. ¿La viste? ¿Qué te pareció?

Créditos: Utilicé el traductor https://www.deepl.com/es/translator.

The journey is one of the most recurring and productive archetypes, from myth, where it originated, to literature and cinema. Thus, we have the oldest reference, the journey of Gilgamesh in the foundational Sumerian poem, that of Ulysses in the Odyssey, passing through many others, until we arrive at García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude or Italo Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveler.

We know that the journey takes place in a specific time and space (but not always). And here we touch on an interesting question: the inseparable relationship between space and time. Hence, modern physics (Minkowski, Einstein) has proposed the concept of space-time. Time travel is therefore a transfer in space, which can happen in an indeterminate way and through undefined spaces.

Let's move on to cinema after this introduction.

Apart from literature, cinema has been the art form that has most addressed the theme of travel from different perspectives. Among the films I like (and remember), I will make a few references below. Sometimes it has been in relation to the unconscious and memory, of which Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000) is an extraordinary example; other times it has been more fantastical and wonderful, such as Cloud Atlas (2012) by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowski brothers; and also the journey through dreams, as seen in Christopher Nolan's extraordinary film Inception (2010); another vein is the retroactive journey, of which the magnificent director David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) is an unparalleled example.

Cinema has been able to take advantage of the space-time relationship, and in a very purposeful way, in most cases. From my perspective and taste, the masterpiece of this connection will continue to be 2001: A Space Odyssey by British-American filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Here are my brief thoughts.

So much has been written about this film that anything I could say here would be insignificant.

As reported on websites, the plot centers on a team of astronauts who try to follow radio signals emitted by a strange monolith found on the Moon, which appears to be the work of an extraterrestrial civilization (Wikipedia).

Although it apparently follows a temporal “sequence,” from the appearance of the ape-man, with the discovery of the weapon and space—that shocking beginning—continuing with others—with indefinite or almost indefinite time jumps—we are in the presence, in my view, the most daring film in terms of presenting reality to our vision, where time seems to enter a dimension that is unknown to it (I am referring to the extended sequence of colors, close to a hallucinogenic trip), and finally encounters its uncertainty (or its desire?): the mystery of life (cosmic eternity?).

All of this, of course, has been crafted by Kubrick with great narrative precision and, at the same time, with unusual imagination and undoubted achievements, considering the years in which it was made, when technology was still quite basic.

Every time we return to 2001: A Space Odyssey —and I have done so many times— we can appreciate the mastery, not only of the direction, but also of its appropriate adaptation to the original novel; also in the use of music (not to mention Richard Strauss's “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” at the beginning), as well as so many other characteristics of that work.

We can focus, for example, on Kubrick's use of wide-angle lenses to offer us a comprehensive image, in the alternation of slow moments (“ma non troppo”) and others that are extremely leisurely in terms of rhythm, in the recurrence —as we have already mentioned— of a kind of “op art” (when it comes to showing the ship entering that kind of “black hole”), and many other cinematic devices.

From the passage to prehistory to the last moment (indefinite in time), we witness an allegory of human behavior in the face of power and consciousness in the face of life. Hence, the final sequence is that of the astronaut in a “place” where he has “arrived” after that space-time adventure, where he is now a mortal old man surrendered to infinity.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Usually, I try my best to keep my expectations low whenever a movie or series that I love gets a third season. It's not that I don't want it to be great, but because most of the times, after two solid seasons, things starts getting shaky. And once I see that they ended season two with a cliffhanger, my hopes instantly drops. There are some movies that have actually surprised me though and gave a very good third season, maybe even more. Alice in Borderland Season 3 didn't really make it to that list.

From the start, I loved Alice in Borderland. The first season blew my mind. The second kept the tension high and gave us an emotional depth that made it even better. But season three?...

Alice in Borderland Season 3 continues from the season 2 intense ending, where Arisu and Usagi woke up after surviving all the deadly games. Witu their memories of the Borderland gone, or so they thought. Arisu and Usagi kept living their life normally, even though Arisu was having flashes and Usagi kept dreaming about her father.

Things begin taking a strange turn when Usagi disappears but is later found unconscious. Arisu discovers that this was somehow connected to a man named Ryuji, a researcher obsessed with the mysteries of the afterlife. Arisu then had to return back to the Borderland just to save Usagi, and once again face the deadly game, this time connected to the mysterious Joker card we saw at the end of season 2.

My Thoughts and Rating

Let me start with the good: the games were perfect. I could lose myself entirely, whenever a new game started. The visuals was very sharp, and the soundtrack was great. It matched the tension beautifully.

The games were amazing. They were clever, thrilling and visually stunning. The games in this season had that same combination of strategy, fear and unpredictability that made the first 2 seasons very addicting to me. It was peak entertainment.

Now, onto the part that made me roll my eyes more than once - the love triangle. Whoever decided to throw in that awkward "Arisu-Usagi-Ryuji" situation needs to answer for it. It felt so unnecessary and forced. The chemistry between Usagi and Arisu had already been built over two seasons, they didn't need another random guy thrown in to "test" their relationship. Instead of adding emotions, it honestly made things feel awkward and dragged down the story's focus.

And that ending... where do I even start from? sighs . It wasn’t satisfying at all. It felt like the writers wanted to be profound and instead, it really bumbled and confused me. Some parts just felt unnecessary.

Alice in Borderland season 3 didn't really deliver as I thought it would. "wait, that's it?", that's the feeling it left me with. Ending it with the idea that they might be a Season 4 (which, I don't think anyone was asking for) by showing the body of another character named Alice? That just spoiled it more for me. I think it would have been better if it had simply ended properly. But they just had to drag it out, again.

I will, however, give credit where credit is due. The cinematography was well done and the acting was solid. But aside the ganes, I think it lacked that emotional pull that I felt in the first 2 seasons had.

Alice in Borderland season 3 is simply a 7/10 for me. Which is mainly because of the games. They were actually the highlight of the entire season. The unnecessary romance plot and that disappointing ending pulled it down. I'm glad I watched it though.

Images source

Few moments in antiquity resonate with such seismic consequence as the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, 44 BC. This single act of political violence, intended to preserve the Roman Republic, instead ignited a chain reaction of civil wars that ultimately extinguished the Republic and birthed the autocratic Empire which would dominate the Western world for centuries. For over two millennia, this pivotal drama – replete with ambition, betrayal, and unintended catastrophe – has captivated artists and chroniclers, spawning countless reinterpretations across literature, theatre, and film. Among these, the 2005 six-part television miniseries Empire, produced for the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), ambitiously sought to dramatise this era. Yet, despite its lofty subject matter and respectable production values, the miniseries ultimately stumbles into the historical dustbin, failing to illuminate the profound complexities of the period it attempts to portray, instead offering a simplified, historically dubious, and ultimately forgettable spectacle.

The narrative commences in the tense atmosphere of Rome, 44 BC, mere months after Caesar (Colm Feore) has consolidated his power through civil war victory. Freed from immediate military threat, he prepares to enact sweeping social and political reforms aimed at stabilising the fractured state. Into this precarious calm steps Camane (Emily Blunt, in one of her earliest significant roles), a Vestal Virgin tormented by prophetic visions of imminent bloodshed. Her desperate, albeit futile, attempts to warn Caesar – who dismisses her omens with characteristic hubris – set the stage for the Senate assassination. The miniseries introduces a critical fictional element: Caesar’s loyal bodyguard, Tyrannus (Jonathan Cake), a former gladiator whose absence during the attack proves fatal. Distracted by the kidnapping of his young son, Tyrannus arrives too late to prevent the daggers from falling. In his dying moments, Caesar, recognising Octavius (Santiago Cabrera) as his designated heir, implores Tyrannus to safeguard the young man. This contrivance – the invented, personally loyal gladiator bodyguard – immediately signals the production’s willingness to prioritise melodrama over historical fidelity, as Caesar’s actual protection relied on the Praetorian Guard, a formal military unit whose loyalty was institutional, not personal in this manner.

Tyrannus locates the vulnerable Octavius, and the pair flee Rome, seeking allies to champion the young heir’s claim against the conspirators. They initially place faith in Mark Antony (Vincent Regan), Caesar’s trusted lieutenant. However, Empire swiftly recasts Antony not as the complex, politically astute figure of history, but as a one-dimensional power-hungry antagonist. Viewing Octavius as an obstacle, Antony attempts to poison him, forcing the heir and his steadfast companion Agrippa (Chris Egan) to flee to Gaul. There, they supposedly recruit one of Caesar’s mythical "lost legions," now reduced to banditry – a narrative flourish with no basis in historical record. Meanwhile, believing Octavius dead, Tyrannus joins Antony’s army as a centurion. His subsequent discovery of Octavius’s survival and his pivotal, last-minute defection during the climactic battle between the rivals – deciding the outcome – serves as the miniseries’ central, highly improbable action set-piece. This sequence epitomises the show’s core flaw: substituting grand, fictionalised personal heroics for the intricate political manoeuvring, shifting alliances, and genuine military strategy that defined the actual power struggle following Caesar’s death. The real Octavius’s path to power was a masterclass in cold political calculation, leveraging legal authority and financial patronage, not reliant on a gladiator’s sword arm.

Shot on location amidst the evocative ruins of Rome and Central Italy, Empire possessed the potential for grandeur. Its budget, while not HBO-level, was sufficient to create a plausible sense of place and deliver moments of visceral action. The premise – reconstructing arguably the most consequential and dramatic chapter in Western political history – promised a potent blend of high-stakes intrigue, personal ambition, and world-altering consequences, akin to the later phenomenon of Game of Thrones but rooted in documented reality. Tragically, the miniseries squandered this potential. The primary culprit is the overcooked, multi-authored script, which commits the cardinal sin of historical drama: it attempts to simplify a profoundly complex historical moment by injecting excessive, anachronistic fiction whilst simultaneously stripping away the intricate factional tapestry of the late Republic. Characters like Tyrannus and Camane are pure inventions, serving only as narrative conduits for action and romance, but their prominence comes at the expense of historical figures and dynamics. The script abandons adherence to the historical record wholesale. Mark Antony’s motivations are distorted into cartoonish villainy; the nuanced political landscape, where figures like Cicero, Lepidus, and Brutus held shifting positions, is flattened into a crude binary of "Good" (Octavius and his fictional protectors) versus "Bad" (primarily Antony and the conspirators).

Compounding these internal weaknesses was Empire’s disastrous timing. It premiered in close proximity to HBO’s lavish, critically acclaimed series Rome (2005-2007), which covered precisely the same historical period with far greater ambition, nuance, and production value. HBO’s series, benefiting from a significantly larger budget and the freedom to depict the era’s brutality and sexuality without network censorship constraints, rendered Empire instantly obsolete. The comparison was brutal: where Rome offered morally ambiguous characters, intricate political machinations, and a gritty, immersive portrayal of daily life, Empire appeared staid, sanitized, and fundamentally unoriginal. The character of Tyrannus, a noble warrior betrayed seeking vengeance for his charge, bore an unmistakable, unflattering resemblance to Maximus Decimus Meridius from Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000), further cementing the miniseries’ reputation as a derivative cash-in rather than a serious historical work.

That said, it would be unjust to dismiss Empire entirely. The cast, working against the limitations of the script, delivers commendable performances. Emily Blunt, before her breakout in The Devil Wears Prada, imbues the thankless role of Camane with palpable anguish, effectively portraying a woman torn between religious duty and burgeoning, forbidden affection towards future emperor. Vincent Regan brings a welcome gravitas and physical presence to his version of Mark Antony, making the character’s villainy at least somewhat compelling, even if historically unrecognisable. Fiona Shaw, in a brief but potent appearance, is utterly captivating as Fulvia, Antony’s formidable and politically active wife – a figure of genuine historical significance often marginalised in fiction, yet here given a fleeting glimpse of her intimidating power, making her underutilisation all the more frustrating.

Ultimately, Empire is another cautionary tale in historical adaptation. It possessed the raw materials – a pivotal moment, evocative locations, and talented actors – but was fatally undermined by a script that confused dramatic simplification with historical understanding, prioritising invented melodrama over the far more compelling complexities of the actual events. Its release alongside the superior Rome highlighted its mediocrity, while its reliance on tropes from Gladiator underscored its lack of originality. The miniseries fails not because it dramatises history, but because it actively obscures it, replacing the messy, fascinating reality of Rome’s death throes with a hollow, fictionalised spectacle. It is a production that mistook the trappings of historical drama – togas, swords, marble sets – for its true essence: the profound exploration of power, ideology, and human frailty that defined the Republic’s fall. Two millennia after Caesar’s fall, Empire proves that understanding why it happened remains infinitely more dramatic than any fictionalised sword fight.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Leodex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

It's been quite a while since I actively watched what was trending in the cinematic world at the time it was trending. Still I can't say I wasn't intrigued by the thought of a young 15 year old boy winning the Outstanding Supporting Actor in the primetime emmt awards. Normally I'm not one to watch award shows because I know for a fact that a number of them are rigged and I don't have the strength nor patience to try and figure out which is and which isn't.

I did also see a clip of an episode on Instagram and it's the one scene that stuck dead in the mind of all who've watched it and it's the scene that led me to download the show.

Adolescence

The series has just 4 episodes, lovely pacing, a strong simple plot and wonderful—incredibly talented—actors and actresses. It's something that you can't get bored watching, because from the get-go the chaos starts.

Click on the image to expand

The cinematography was amazing. The chaos was something that's enthralling and you the viewer are shocked as well by their acting, at some point you feel as though your part of the family, feeling their confusion and their disbelief as the police knocks their door open by 6 in the morning.

Click on the image to expand

And from here it just keeps on getting better and better, episode after episode.

The arrangements of the storyline episode by episode is another thing that I loved. The main story showing us how the whole case unfolded, the first episode being his arrest, the second episode is how the news of the arrest affected his social life, his school, his friends and people that knew him.

Click on the image to expand

His friends and the friends of the deceased in particular. We watch as their worlds change, each of them owning their roles and screentime. The best friend of the deceased grieving and in denial, turning violent at Jamie's best friend who she believes knew about the murder and Jamie's best friend who's panicked that Jamie actually went through with it, is in denial and doesn't want to be caught in the mess that Jamie has made.

Click on the image to expand

The next episode takes a look at Jamie himself, a therapy session and we see exactly how scary this character is and how talented the actor is in bringing this character to life. The themes are different now, it isn't just about the fact of social bullying, it's a mountain of minor evils that has shifted his view on women and himself. It was hinted before in the first episode, talked about in the second episode and laid bare for everyone to see in the third. Before we as the viewers saw that he was guilty, now we are accepting and believing that he is and even if he isn't, it's clear as day that he someday would be.

Click on the image to expand

After this we're taken to about a year later, no looking at the effects of the arrest on Jamie's family, his father in particular. It's his birthday, 13 months after Jamie's therapy session, he is now in prison and he decides to send his dad a birthday gift and a phonecall. His dad himself is not having the best of days, the murder case has blown up and his family is famous for all the wrong reasons and today just seems to be extra unfortunate. He flips

Click on the image to expand

A birthday originally planned to be as good as possible has him breaking down wondering where it all went wrong.

Click on the image to expand

And then finally accepting that his son is gone.

A wonderful story actually, one that is beautiful in its simplicity and realism. It's not based on a true life story, yet it's a story that can so easily be true, it's a story that is true for a lot of families who have kinsmen that are killers and criminals.

I rate this show a 9 out of 10, a superb creation and one series that I absolutely insist you see🔥✨

_{All Images are screenshots of the movie.}

_{My Instagram page.}

Posted Using INLEO

Posted Using INLEO

It's coming up on Halloween and I think this might be the first October where I was just completely oblivious to which month it actually was and how fast the Halloween holiday was coming up. I used to spend as much of the October month watching various horror and thriller films and television shows to get into that atmosphere of Halloween, having been someone that always loved that aesthetic but never really did anything on the holiday night or day itself. We're now almost ten days into the month and I just had that epiphany, quickly scrambling to find a film to check out tonight that wasn't too long to begin that old tradition of mine that I'd nearly forgotten about with all the chaos of the recent days distracting me.

I felt like watching something old, very old. Something that could be coming up on its 100th anniversary soon sort of old. Black and white horror. Before the use of colour. Before the more modern use of horror was found with jump scares and low light. I wanted something more theatrical in its approach. The directing still creative but simple, the acting something that screams theatre performance rather than something more modern and Oscar-worthy. And it dawned upon me that there's a whole list of fun Universal monster films that I could watch. The ones that really started it all, pretty much. Starting with 1931's Dracula. Also the film that gave the character of Dracula a face to remember, coming from the great Bela Lugosi.

Immediately the story throws us into the fears of a group that roam the night in search of blood. Feasting upon the unfortunate, taking forms of bats and wolves. This is done through the arrival of a horse and carriage just around sunset. Taking a foreigner into the wild lands and through a village, to which he is warned of the dangers at night. The foreigner of course shrugging it off and claiming that he's meeting a Count Dracula later on. This is met with great fear and rejection from the locals, given Count Dracula himself is the one that they fear. I really liked this opening, it jumps straight into things, and immediately throws in the fears of locals through their superstitions, as far as refusing to go outside even before the sun has fully set. Everyone insisting that the foreigner joins them and seeks shelter.

With such a short runtime the story really picks up out of nowhere, and I think that's something we've really lost going into present day cinema, where the time is stretched out and everything needs a long establishing narrative. This display of superstition also increases the fear of the threat, and with how much bigger the world would've felt back then in the early 1930s, one can only imagine the impact it would've had. Where small towns and villages likely would've had their own superstitions that stemmed from close communities and unknown horizons that were rarely travelled. Particularly with the nature that would've lurked within the darkness of the night nearby, in the forests and over the mountains. Watching something like this back then certainly would've been a bit of a scare!

I found the visuals incredibly beautiful. And something I noticed was the characteristics of the lenses used. They performed a more swirly bokeh that was still quite visible in the backgrounds even with the black and white and generally darker tones. This would've been unintentional back then given how common of an outcome it was with those lenses, but today it would've been a direct consideration to make things more otherworldly, less connected to a grounded reality. I guess the impact remains the same nonetheless. The use of that film stock definitely adds to the atmosphere too. Black and white out of no colour stock yet, grainy and gritty, amplifying the harsh surroundings of Dracula's castle which is covered in debris, dust, and all kinds of critters. This also added to dynamic range, where the shadows end up being incredibly dark. The story being something a bit more a thing of its time, but not in any negative manner: a solicitor called up to his client's castle regarding papers on real estate. His intent being to move from Transylvania to England. What's interesting about the story though is how it portrays Count Dracula, initially as a rather respectful individual. Only for Dracula to pursue a series of manipulations through the use of drugs and hypnotics. Enforcing the lawyer to his will for his travels to England with his three wives. Slowly hunting upon the locals as they come to the realisation of what is happening. I quite liked the simplicity of the story in this regard. It's more how the acts unfold in a slow, theatrical manner. Also amplified by a lack of music throughout the film, often with just total silence. Nothing between scenes, nothing over dialogue or moments of suspense.

source

My love of all kinds of food led me to this Korean drama. It's a recent hit, stirring up everyone who enjoys saeguk dramas with a mix of comedy and romance. Bon Appetit, Your Majesty will satisfy your cravings.

This is one of the Korean dramas I recommend watching amidst other Korean drama series, as all Korean dramas these days have a slightly headache-inducing feel, full of intrigue, like Tempest.

Bon Appetit, Your Majesty is a highly treat almost every weekend, because the story is refreshing and will keep viewers hook. Especially with Girls' Generation's Yoona's timeless visuals, always looking cheerful and youthful in every scene. Wow! Truly youthful.

source This Korean drama tells the story of a historical Joseon kingdom ruled by a real king. He's says to be a tyrant who didn't hesitate to kill anyone who opposed him, include uncovering the intrigues and who kill his biological mother. It be so exciting if that were the real story!

Wait. I thought this drama might change the real history, but it turns out, to keep the story from being misconception-ridden, it ended up being a happy ending, even though my heart wasn't ready for a sad ending.

There are many strengths to this fresh story, especially the cooking and the introduction to the food (menu) of the Joseon Dynasty. Of course, with a good palate and colorful storytelling. It's said that Yoona cooks herself, which is so cool! When else will you see Yoona, famous for her beauty, also be a skilled cook?

Unfortunately, I slightly disliked the ending, which ended up being so rushed. Meaning? They only gave Yoona and Yoona one episode to save the king when the king's power was finally taken by the next king.

Although it felt very forced, the ending was rushed, and there were many questions regarding how the king managed to time travel to 2025, it was a little annoying but enjoyable. It's like eating an unsalted steak. A little bland, even though it was made from A5 wagyu beef.

Boys of Summer (S04E101)

Airdate: September 10th 2006

Written by: David Simon Directed by: Joe Chappele

Running Time: 58 minutes

The Wire, in its uncompromising autopsy of urban decay, could have concluded with Season 3 and stood as a perfectly coherent, self-contained television masterpiece. That season’s resolution provided a natural terminus. The narrative arc tracing the narcotics trade, the port unions, and the political machine formed a devastating triptych of institutional failure in Baltimore, requiring no further elaboration. Yet HBO, for better and worse, chose to heed David Simon’s vision, extending the saga by two seasons to fulfil his original blueprint: one dysfunctional institution per year. Season 1 laid bare the police and the drug corners of West Baltimore; Season 2 exposed the rot within the city’s economic lifeline, the port; Season 3 dissected the political superstructure itself. Season 4, however, shifted its scalpel to the most ethically harrowing frontier yet: the public education system. This pivot plunged the series into profound moral darkness, for here the casualties weren’t hardened criminals or cynical bureaucrats, but children – the ostensibly innocent, the utterly vulnerable. The premiere, Boys of Summer, sets the stage for this descent, yet stumbles under the weight of its own necessary expositions, revealing the immense challenge Simon faced in sustaining the show’s momentum beyond its seemingly perfect endpoint.

The episode opens with a scene of deceptive, almost jarring lightness. Snoop, the chillingly efficient enforcer for Marlo Stanfield’s ascendant crew, enters a hardware store. She listens with unnerving attentiveness as a salesman drones on about the nuances of power drills. Her quiet, almost childlike curiosity about the tools’ capabilities creates a moment of darkly absurdist humour. Only at the very last moment does the salesman’s expression shift – a dawning horror as he realises the potential applications of these tools for someone like Snoop. It’s a microcosm of The Wire’s genius in finding the mundane within the monstrous. Yet this levity proves fleeting, a cruel prelude to the episode’s true subject.

Before Snoop’s sinister purpose is revealed, the camera pulls away from the hardware store, turning its gaze towards the sun-drenched, seemingly carefree streets of Baltimore summer. Here, we are introduced to the quartet who will anchor Season 4’s harrowing narrative: Michael Lee (Tristan Wilds), the stoic, protective leader; Randy Wagstaff (Maestro Harrell), whose street smarts and relative stability (thanks to a caring foster mother) mark him as the group’s potential survivor; Duquan “Dukie” Weems (Jermaine Crawford), whose quiet vulnerability and ill-fitting clothes scream neglect; and Namond Brice (Julito McCullum), the loudmouthed son of Wee-Bey Brice, currently working as a runner for Bodie Broadus. Their world is one of petty games and territorial skirmishes with rival crews – a fragile, temporary kingdom of childhood before the school year forces them into the crumbling edifice of Edward Tilghman Middle School.

This idyll is violently interrupted by the brutal logic of the streets Marlo Stanfield now dominates. A year after Stringer Bell’s death and the Barksdale collapse, Marlo’s empire has ruthlessly consolidated power, pushing aside rivals like Bodie, who now operates as a precarious independent dealer. Bodie warns his associate Curtis “Lex” Anderson (Norman Jackson) to avoid provoking Marlo’s crew – a warning Lex ignores after Marlo’s underling, Fruit, steals his girlfriend, Patricia. Lex’s retaliatory, public execution of Fruit is a fatal miscalculation. Marlo, ever the cold calculator, deems the motive personal rather than business-related, limiting the required vengeance to Lex alone. The trap is sprung through Randy: manipulated by Marlo’s lieutenant Little Kevin (Tyrell Baker) into delivering a false message from Patricia, Randy unwittingly lures Lex into Snoop and Chris Partlow’s waiting hands. Lex is taken to a derelict rowhouse, executed, and buried under lime before the house is boarded up – a grim testament to Marlo’s efficient, hidden violence. The true horror lies in Randy’s dawning realisation; the innocent errand boy slowly comprehends the monstrous role he played, his youthful face etched with a confusion that foreshadows the season’s central tragedy: the corruption of childhood innocence.

Meanwhile, the Major Case Unit operates in a state of institutional limbo. Under the disengaged command of Lieutenant Gene Asher (Gene Terinoni), Lester Freamon (Clarke Peters) functions as the unit’s de facto leader. Freamon and his veteran team, including Bunk Moreland (Wendell Pierce), are fixated on building a wiretap case against Stanfield. Yet they are baffled by the eerie lack of bodies on the streets – a direct consequence of Marlo’s innovation in disposal methods, hidden within the city’s abandoned rowhouses.

Simultaneously, Councilman Tommy Carcetti (Aidan Gillen), weeks from the mayoral primary, battles exhaustion and plummeting poll numbers. His ambition is tempered by the cynicism of his campaign manager, Norman Wilson (Reg E. Cathey), whose weary pragmatism starkly contrasts with Carcetti’s fading idealism. Elsewhere, former colleagues navigate their own post-MCU lives: Cedric Daniels (Lance Reddick) successfully commands the Western District; Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West) clings to his placid existence as a uniformed patrolman, actively resisting any pull back to detective work; Carver (Seth Gilliam) attempts nuanced tactics on the corners; and Herc (Domenick Lombardozzi) has found himself in the unchallenging role of Royce’s security detail. Most poignantly, Prez (Jim True-Frost), expelled from the police force, steps into the chaotic world of Edward Tilghman Middle School as a maths teacher. His initial idealism, facing the reality of an underfunded, decaying institution overrun by unruly students, is palpable – a fragile hope soon to be tested by the system’s overwhelming inertia.

Crucially, what might initially appear as a narrative contrivance – a former police detective finding redemption as a schoolteacher – is deeply rooted in reality. Prez’s character is, in significant measure, a dramatisation of Ed Burns, David Simon’s collaborator and The Wire’s co-creator. Burns, a former Baltimore homicide detective and public school teacher, drew directly from his own experiences within both failing institutions. This biographical grounding imbues Prez’s storyline with an authenticity that transcends mere plot convenience. His struggles in the classroom – the chaos, the lack of resources, the students’ deep-seated trauma – are not fictional embellishments but documentary observations. Simon leverages Burns’ lived experience to ensure that the school’s dysfunction is portrayed as the inevitable outcome of policy failures, bureaucratic indifference, and societal neglect.

Written by David Simon and directed by series veteran Joe Chappelle, Boys of Summer undeniably serves its function as a season premiere. It reorients the audience, re-establishes the shifting power dynamics of Baltimore’s streets and corridors of power, and introduces the crucial new setting of the school system. However, it falls short of the electrifying impact of previous premieres like The Target. Much of this shortfall stems from the sheer narrative burden it shoulders. The episode is heavily weighted towards servicing the established characters – providing necessary updates on Carcetti’s campaign, the MCU’s struggles, and the fates of McNulty, Prez, and others. While these threads are vital for continuity, they come at the expense of the new generation. With the notable exception of Randy, whose pivotal role in Lex’s murder immediately imbues him with narrative weight and dread, the other boys remain frustratingly sketchy. Michael’s quiet leadership, Dukie’s palpable vulnerability, and Namond’s bluster lack the immediate, visceral depth that defined Omar Little or Avon Barksdale in their introductions. They feel like archetypes rather than fully realised individuals in this initial outing.

Consequently, Boys of Summer represents a necessary but undeniably rocky fresh start. It successfully signals the season’s bleaker thematic turn – the institutional victimisation of children – through potent vignettes like Randy’s unwitting complicity. Yet, it lacks the narrative propulsion and character immediacy that made earlier premieres so compelling. The episode commits the cardinal sin of prioritising logistical setup over emotional stakes for its new protagonists. While the hardware store scene and Lex’s execution showcase The Wire’s signature blend of dark humour and brutal realism, these moments serve Marlo’s established menace more than they illuminate the central tragedy of the schoolchildren’s plight. The challenge Simon set himself – matching the intricate, character-driven mastery of the first three seasons while pivoting to a fundamentally different, even more morally fraught setting – is laid bare here. Boys of Summer proves that extending The Wire beyond its seemingly perfect Season 3 conclusion was a gamble of immense difficulty. In 2006, fans might have hoped the show could seamlessly continue its trajectory; this premiere, however, starkly reveals the precariousness of that hope. It is a functional, occasionally brilliant, but ultimately uneven foundation upon which Season 4’s profound, devastating exploration of the education system’s failure must be built.

RATING: 6/10 (++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Leodex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

Hello everyone, how are you? I hope you're all well. I recently finished watching a Korean drama. This drama isn't strictly a historical drama, but it does share the same theme as a historical traveler. Of course, this drama is very popular because Yoona from SNSD plays the role. Actually, among Yoona's dramas, I like Big Mouth.

But, let's just review this drama. This drama tells the story of a chef who wins an international competition but experiences time travel to the Joseon era. Oh yeah, I forgot to introduce the actors. The main characters are Yoona and Lee Chae Min. I love Lee Chae Min in historical dramas. Lee Chae Min's acting is excellent.

Because Yoona and Lee Chae Min play the roles, I watched this drama. Oh yeah, I'm a fan of ongoing dramas. This drama tells the story of a Joseon king who falls in love with a royal chef. When Yoona enters the Joseon era, she becomes the royal chef, specifically serving dishes for the king.

Meanwhile, Lee Chae Min plays a very evil king. In this drama, he is referred to as a tyrant. In fact, Lee Chae Min is very easy to kill. In this drama, the king's behavior is also influenced by his past, especially the memory of his mother's death. This is also what causes the king to become so evil.

On the one hand, the presence of the royal chef leads the king to fall in love. The king falls in love with the royal chef's attitude and the food he cooks. Yoona is transported to the Joseon era by reading a recipe from that era. So, how does it end? Is it a happy ending or a sad ending?

Time travel dramas always have tragic endings. We all know this drama starring IU. It became one of the most legendary sad-ending dramas. At the end of the story, Yoona discovers that the royal-era recipe book is a heartbreak book written by the king for her. The recipes in the book are the ones Yoona created during her time in the Joseon era.

At the beginning of the story, after Yoona enters the Joseon era, the book she was carrying suddenly disappears while the king is writing it. The final episode of this drama is very dramatic. Bloodshed ensues. However, this brings the king to the present day.

The king lives as a commoner and meets Yoona. This drama is entirely fictional. It has no connection to actual Korean history. That's all I can share in this article. What do you think? Have you watched this drama?

Posted Using INLEO

A finales de los 90', "I Know What You Did Last Summer", película basada en la novela de suspenso que lleva el mismo nombre, escrita por Lois Duncan en 1973, fue parte del relanzamiento del género slasher; en mi opinión está película intentó de ser diferente desarrollando mucho más la historia de sus protagonistas lo cual proveyó misterio y un final con tensión, suspenso y por supuesto muertes; ese film fue un éxito en taquilla aunque lamentablemente no pudo convertirse en una extensa y exitosa franquicia, ya que tanto la inmediata secuela, así como otros proyectos basados en esa misma historia no repitieron la buena calidad de la primera producción; ahora, así como sucede con todo asesino de un slasher, está franquicia se niega a morir y 28 años después, el pescador sigue recordando y regresando en busca de venganza. 

In the late 1990s, "I Know What You Did Last Summer," a film based on the thriller novel of the same name written by Lois Duncan in 1973, was part of the slasher genre's revival. In my opinion, this film tried to be different by developing the story of its protagonists much more, which provided mystery and an ending with tension, suspense, and, of course, deaths. The film was a box office success, although unfortunately it was unable to become a long-running and successful franchise, as both the immediate sequel and other projects based on the same story failed to repeat the high quality of the first production. Now, as with all slasher killers, this franchise refuses to die, and 28 years later, the fisherman continues to remember and return in search of revenge. 

Mentiría si digo que "I Know What You Did Last Summer", era de las películas que más quería ver en este año; mis motivaciones eran pocas, ya que tenía la sensación de que no estaría a la altura del primer film y lamentablemente estaba en lo correcto; esta película que funciona tanto como un remake y secuela es igual decepcionante tal como lo fue "I Still Know", secuela estrenada en 1998. En esta "nueva" historia, veremos cómo un grupo de jóvenes amigos se reencuentran en su pueblo natal de Southport, North Carolina, lo cual los lleva a disfrutar de la celebración del 4 de julio, pero lo que nunca esperaron es que cierta negligencia causada por la bebida, les hará ser parte de un accidente que lamentablemente cobrará la vida de una persona, un hecho que podrá destruir el futuro de cada uno de ellos y justamente ese miedo causado por sus actos los llevará a mantener un secreto que sin saberlo podrá ser su perdición, ya que alguien sabe lo que hicieron y un año después, está dispuesto a hacerlos pagar.

I would be lying if I said that "I Know What You Did Last Summer" was one of the movies I most wanted to see this year; I had little motivation to see it, as I had a feeling it wouldn't live up to the first film, and unfortunately, I was right. This movie, which functions as both a remake and a sequel, is just as disappointing as "I Still Know," the sequel released in 1998. In this "new" story, we see how a group of young friends reunite in their hometown of Southport, North Carolina, which leads them to enjoy the Fourth of July celebrations. but what they never expected was that a certain negligence caused by drinking would make them part of an accident that would sadly claim the life of one person, an event that could destroy the future of each of them. It is precisely this fear caused by their actions that will lead them to keep a secret that, unbeknownst to them, could be their downfall, as someone knows what they did and, a year later, is willing to make them pay.

De las características más presente en los slasher es lo repetitivo de sus historias y posiblemente hacer una crítica negativa referente a eso puede considerarse como algo incorrecto, pero lo hecho en esta nueva película de la franquicia al repetir muchos aspectos de la película original, me pareció inadecuado, es más que una señal de poca originalidad, es una demostración de nula imaginación y no concuerdo de que recrear momentos importantes del film original en esta nueva producción sea considerado como un homenaje, creo que se perdió la oportunidad de hacer algo actual, de para generar conexión con un nuevo público y no tanto el usar la nostalgia para hacer feliz al público que vio el primer film hace ya casi 30 años. No hay duda que este es uno de los guiones menos originales que he visto, ya que no solo copia lo ya hecho en la franquicia, sino en otras que decidieron seguir expandiendo (por así decirlo) sus franquicias, por ejemplo Scream que tanto en su cuarto como quinto film, se decidió regresar al lugar de origen y nuevamente dar protagonismo a sus personajes principales; eso también se puso en práctica en esta nueva "I Know", lo cual siendo sincero, no tuve problemas con eso, pero la participación no fue para nada la mejor, en especial el trabajo de Jennifer Love Hewitt.

One of the most common characteristics of slasher films is the repetitiveness of their stories, and it may be considered inappropriate to criticize this aspect. However, in this new film in the franchise, the repetition of many aspects of the original film seemed inappropriate to me. It is more than a sign of lack of originality; it is a demonstration of zero imagination. I do not agree that recreating important moments from the original film in this new production should be considered a tribute. I think they missed an opportunity to do something current, to connect with a new audience, rather than using nostalgia to please the audience that saw the first film almost 30 years ago. There is no doubt that this is one of the least original scripts I have ever seen, as it not only copies what has already been done in the franchise, but also in others that decided to continue expanding (so to speak) their franchises. For example, Scream, in both its fourth and fifth films, decided to return to its place of origin and once again give prominence to its main characters. This was also put into practice in this new "I Know," which, to be honest, I had no problem with, but the performances were not the best, especially the work of Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Cómo es habitual, no trato de ser exigente con respecto a las actuaciones en este tipo de películas, ya que la mayoría tendrán un tiempo limitado en escena, pero cuando los personajes están bien escritos y presentan una buena interpretación, es algo que siempre valoro, ahora en esta película no existe absolutamente nada de esas características y es otro de sus puntos negativos; cada uno de estos personajes son una copia de quienes protagonizaron el film original y eso me molestó, inadecuado; fue algo que me sorprendió para mal porque es como si los personajes vivieran para recrear las vidas de otros, un tipo de reencarnación, una simple y aburrida sátira.

As usual, I don't try to be too demanding when it comes to performances in this type of film, since most actors will have limited screen time, but when the characters are well written and well acted, it's something I always appreciate. In this film, however, there is absolutely nothing of the sort, which is another negative point. Each of these characters is a copy of those who starred in the original film, and that bothered me. It was inappropriate. It was something that surprised me in a bad way because it is as if the characters live to recreate the lives of others, a type of reincarnation, a simple and boring satire.

La nueva I Know What You Did Last Summer es de las peores películas que he visto en este año, es una lamentable producción que se empeñó en repetir lo hecho en la exitosa primera película y eso los conllevó olvidar el relatar una historia que en realidad reviviera la franquicia y la relanzara hacia un nuevo público; justamente usar la nostalgia copiando lo hecho hace 28 años es en parte lo peor del film, ya que es la base de toda la historia y lamentablemente eso es lo afecta a las demás buenas ideas que presenta la película, ideas que también son muy mal ejecutadas porque no tiene un desarrollo adecuado y a pesar de ser un film con una duración de dos horas, su tercer y acto final se siente muy apresurado y nada satisfactorio, en mi opinión es peor película de lo que fue la segunda parte. Mi recomendación es que si por casualidad no han visto el primer film, entonces vean esa película sin enfocarse en la actuación de Jenifer Love Hewitt, sino en la gran actuación de Sarah Michelle Gellar, quien es la verdadera estrella de toda la franquicia.

The new I Know What You Did Last Summer is one of the worst movies I've seen this year. It's a regrettable production that insisted on repeating what was done in the successful first film, which led them to forget to tell a story that would actually revive the franchise and relaunch it to a new audience. Precisely using nostalgia by copying what was done 28 years ago is part of what makes the film so bad, as it is the basis of the entire story and unfortunately affects the other good ideas presented in the film, ideas that are also very poorly executed because they are not developed properly. Despite being a two-hour film, the third and final act feels very rushed and unsatisfactory. In my opinion, it is a worse film than the second installment. My recommendation is that if by chance you haven't seen the first film, then watch that movie without focusing on the performance of Jenifer Love Hewitt, but rather on the great performance of Sarah Michelle Gellar, who is the real star of the entire franchise.

Cover image edited in canva; the image was taken from the following source